Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    August 26, 2014 6:00am-6:31am PDT

6:00 am
report. >> thank you. all right. i will call the motion all in favor, say i. >> i. >> i. >> opposed. motion is carried unanimously. finding response to understanding one a will be modified as so forth in the motion. there's been commissioner hayon has raised the issue where we're going to talk about every sentence in the response in which case we may be here a long time if the commissioners want to do that or if we turn to what may be the key recommendations that is, i think the public is concerned that we ought to address. i will follow the commissioners.
6:01 am
>> well mr. chair unless we're going to jet son the entire response and going and formulate a response based on what we think are the major policy questions that we want to talk about which i wouldn't have a problem with if we just jet residence the response we have in the draft i think that if we don't - if we don't do that then unfortunately, there's a lot of language in here that i feel i have to take on and the commission should take on because there's a lot of that is simply inappropriate we've not put it out as a property draft and certainly i wouldn't want to
6:02 am
adapt the rest of it without addressing some of the things i've got a half a dozen but. >> no, i appreciate that but i think we're mandated to respond to the finding and to the representations and we're mandated to do it by a certain date i believe did draft has been out for sometime and comments could have been made at this point but in order to get a final draft there's got to be three of us to say we agree this letter goes to the superior court with our mandated response. i'll do that wherever way we
6:03 am
feel comfortable >> despite my desire to do a bigger picture discussion i acknowledge we, you know, in the task we don't have a choice but to go through the language but perhaps go through each one to see if there are disagreement so if we can do that fiscally that would be great. >> well, i would propose to do let's go through the total number one finding recommendation resolve that one and though i may not be required to do it i'll choose to get public comment before we vote on the entire body of one and go through each one of them.
6:04 am
so you started on one a anyone have any other comments it goes through the recommendation >> yes. mr. chair, i have a comment on one c at the bottom. once again the language there right leg to do with confidentiality i agree we have a problem we can't disregard the confidentiality i have a question that takes a shot at the grand jury it's not logical either where we go ahead and justifies certain acts we can't take because of our confidential
6:05 am
requirements we add the last action the civil grand jury operates in confidentiality that's an apple and an orange the confidentiality requirements we very specific confidentiality requirements in the code itself. to say that whatever our confidentiality requirements are justified because of the civil grand jury operates in complete confidentiality the whole history of grand juries and the grand juries do thing is much different to attempt to equality the work of the grand jury with the city commission and the way the grand juries operate themselves and back to the code therefore to use that as a
6:06 am
justification is a little bit dwrand i don't say and it's not comparing two things because jngz operate with confidentiality so i just move to strike it sentence where the commission knows that the grand jury operates in complete confidentiality it's a comment that says nothing >> anyone on recommendation one? >> no wyoming that would be saying much my comments to the language and number one mr. chair. >> any commissioners have any other proposed amendments other than number one. >> as amended i take you, you move we adapt the response to finding and recommendation
6:07 am
number one with the ability to change that sentence. >> yes. >> do i have a second. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> i. >> does anyone want to comment on you're taking it out? i thought you were going to ask us to comment on all of one >> go ahead. >> one f has to do with the f p pc. and our investigation from the civil grand jury is that the f p pc is prepared to accept a contracted for the local laws they have the same authority and open to the suggestions of the board of supervisors to create a similar arrangement for san
6:08 am
francisco. so this statement says that it's possible the charter with pribit a contract nothing in the statement that would prohibit that it says in - it says it's not allowed under the state law that's not what the agency told the grand jury because of our confidentiality but we can tell me they were authoritative figures it's not simply the sunset of san bernardino but other counties as well has that authority. thank you. >> any other public comment? the motion it's been seconded. all in favor, say i. >> i.
6:09 am
>> opposed? all right. for finding and response to finding and representation number one approved unanimously to finding number 23 and the recommendations any commissioner have any comment on the draft language as to finding number 2? >> i have some questions mr. chair and if i may put them to the gentleman. in regard to number 2 the grand jury talks about improper campaign contributions returned to the contractor would you tell us what those were
6:10 am
>> i believe there's a number of instances we were thinking about money laundering situations where actually cases have been brought by others entities but the campaign contributions were returned. >> so the campaign contributes were returned but there was no action by this commission waving the forfeiture saying they could be returned. >> no one we found. >> i want to note that finding 2 and recommendation 2 we didn't call for a response by the ethics commission on this particular item. there are other items in this draft. findings and recommendation number 7 and 18 >> number 78 and 18 did you say.
6:11 am
>> yes. we didn't call for a response. >> is there some reason you didn't want a response to that? >> we're calling for an audit by the city attorney for example. there's just as one member of the commission i'd like to be educated in regard to those activities if the commission did act wrongfully and failed to do it's duty to >> we didn't find any action by the committee all those things were recorded in the press, you know, they clearly were situations like in money laundering you know where you have an employer reimbursing
6:12 am
employees for campaign contributions where the captions say we returned the contributions. >> did you find out anything before the money was returned or. >> i can't say. you you can't say because of the confidentiality or you just don't knows >> i don't know. >> is there a motion that the commission adapt vnth response to finding 2 and the recommendation? >> i'm going to leave it the way it is you don't need another motion. >> i've been advised we don't need a motion we're going to adapt it at the end for all those who didn't make a change we'll make a general adaptation
6:13 am
at the end. >> mr. chair, i hate to be a dog but we have language we're giving back to the grand jury even though we're not required to make the recommendation if we want to take that language out but we respond there's this response if the committee returns a corporate or excess contribution the return contribution is not subject for for the it is your it clearly falls under the authority of the ethics commission for a reduction of the forfeiture it's almost like we're responding this thing it was okay for us to do that because someone gave it back and we had to - the power
6:14 am
to wave it i move we striking it language out of our response. >> since they're not asking for a response i don't know what it says. >> are you saying based on what you've been told there the grand jury didn't ask us to respond to recommendation number 2 we eliminate it. >> yes. >> i would say eliminate or respond more directly we agree and would make a representation to the board of supervisors to request an independent audit or we disagree we'll not make a recommendation so one of the two. >> i'd adapt commissioner andrews first recommendation that we agree because if this has been done and money has gone
6:15 am
back which should have been for photo and it illegal went to someone other than going to the city which should get the money it should be exposed so i would agree with commissioner andrews that we agree with the city attorney that the board of supervisors requiring an independent audit to see whether or not anything of those things happened. >> can i comment. i don't know the case this grand jury is talking about >> they're not talking about it. >> it was handed by the district attorney notice the ethics commission the law allows us to reduce certain forfeitures.
6:16 am
when candidates and captions accept illegal contributions and bring it to our attendance we allow them to return the money >> you're not making sense in regards to my skew does he know of particular cases and he said no, he doesn't know of any you've got something nickel and dimed obviously but not what the grand jury had in mind we're going to respond to something you know about that you have in mind - >> so. >> didn't makes sense we've got to respond to the grand jury. >> well, i request the commissioners eliminate the response entirely. >> i agree but add the language that commissioner andrews is
6:17 am
suggesting that there be an audit if there are any of those improper actions that have occurred with the money went back it be found out about. >> if i think so they weren't improper ways the commission had not acted so there was discretion rather than being for photo to the city the forfeiture was waved so nothing ways done illegal as i understand what's being said but so i would i think i would prefer at least from might have point of view we just not respond if the grand jury didn't ask us to respond and let the district attorney respond, however, he may want.
6:18 am
>> well - we could i would amend it and say the commission who are acknowledged doesn't know of campaign contributions but agrees with the recommendation an independent by the city attorney audit be conducted. >> i'd accept that language for a motion. >> excuse me. >> i take our motion specifically. >> i move that we remove the current response and replace while the commission doesn't have acknowledge of independent campaign contributions we
6:19 am
recommend the board of supervisors request an independent audit by the city attorney. >> second. >> all right. public comment on the proposed >> i'm bob. i like the fact your frankly going to amend this and get rid of what seems clearly convoluted draft response. i want to suggest it it might be worth in the future getting a education and revisiting the policy decision. here's why in the draft wording it seems like it is inconsistently e inconsistent that you say prior to my action taken by the commission and then i say the commission may provide for the waiver of reduction in staff knows about it by the commission hadn't had it on
6:20 am
their agenda it can be returned. there's the problem here that when i was on the commission we are that given the understanding the wording of setting up the commission there's not a distinction between the commission you folks and staff so the public self-necessarily know but staff sometimes has authority to do things in the name of the commission that's where you're talking about in your draft prior to my action that's an active verb the commission can provide for a specific condition this does not say - there's inconsistentcy in the policy whatever the situation presented itself so
6:21 am
you can have a better understanding and better deal with possible audits. thank you. >> any other public comment? >> larry ambitious u bush from the civil grand jury the august minutes should there was never a vote taken but a memo in march of 2008 which outlines policy statements one was were there an inve inve invert acceptance that money was returned but there will be a signed stipulation in the candidates saying they've accepted a contributions that was not acceptable. we found no record as required.
6:22 am
i'll further state that policy was to remain in effect until the commission overturned it it quo was not reviewed since march 2008 and i will point out it was a policy statement and not a regulation therefore it never went to the board of supervisors it was entirely in house. i suggest as the gentleman said you revisit the entire policy and see if this is something you want to take a look at >> thank you. >> commissioner. ray i totally agree with both of the prior speakers any waiver to be a position where the commission considers it where anyone in the public can hear the decision and make comments and be done. this is basically, if you read
6:23 am
the recommendation it is an admission we've done this in the past and an admission this is our blanket policy. and that's not the way things should be done it leaves basically what it is i'm a corporate attorney and i say well, let's give the donation and it small business catches us or if the person that gets the donation realize it is one thing weigh take it back with no penalty it drops the bar to a social level that anybody can do it and suffer no consequences. those kinds of things i understand if you have a small campaign janey gray device to run for the board of supervisors and makes an illegal contributions and you have a meagerly and say it was? an
6:24 am
intention and she didn't have the resources it understand what she was doing let's wave. that i understand that but we're talking about big corporate donations as the members of the grand jury said in instances where a company said you donate the money and we'll reimburse you we're not talking about somebody who did it inverting but in those cases there should be a clearing before any of the money is returned to them. the reason it should go to the city? first place is there's a penalty for not following the law if it's simply a blanket statement you break the law he
6:25 am
correct it before we catch it you get our money back it's totally against public policy and totally unethnical. >> is there any public comment? you know, i want to encourage the commissioners to speak into the microphones when their discussing over and over those recommendations the members of the public can hear. i would a recommendation 2 is directed not to the commission i will urge the commission just to agree with the recommendations of the grand jury and this is the city attorney established an independent audit to see if there's improper conduct either by troishth or commissioners or other staff. >> i will call a motion.
6:26 am
commissioner keane >> yes. i'd rather than, okay. can you hear me? just so it doesn't get lost? shuffle could someone make a not in our next meeting we do revisit that august 2008 policy that's being talked about having to do with the matter of money that doesn't have to be forfeited to the city certain things have happened i'd like to take note of that now. and we won't have a discussion on it >> can we ask the staff to make a note to put it on the agenda that we revisit the august 2008
6:27 am
policy to which is referenced i want to call the motion. yeah. all in favor, say i. to the amendment to finding in recommendation number 2 all in favor, say i. i >> opposed? it was unanimous and the record should reflect the chair is in charge >> i express any sincere apologizes to my fellow commissioners, i miss calendared it was k4r5ur7b9d when i was out of the country my sincere
6:28 am
apologizes and i'll get caught up and will be here for the tak. >> we're back in session regarding the grand jury report. when we took the break were were on finding number 3. commissioners any comments >> yes. mr. chair this is another one i don't understand why we're answering it is way we're answering it i would change to we agree a broad citizens right to enforce those lose will make sure the laws are
6:29 am
enforced this is an apple pie motherhood type of statement we disagree that's our answer why do we disagree that with a broader citizens statement that the laws will be enforced any kind of broadening of the power to enforce ethnical aforementioned in our socket to the good whether by a right of action to citizens or anyone we should agree. the recommendation that this can be done by the board of supervisors enacting a particular version that gives
6:30 am
the folks the right like a private attorney general action to enforce the award of attorney's fees that's an incentive for citizens to help out in ethnical matters and if the jury has found that is good and that the board of supervisors should be asked to do that i think we should join in with them >> other comments in the commissioners? >> there's some legal wasn't proposition j struck down by the court and there's a question of whether or not that clause was controlling. >> you're right we should take out as provided as was provided by proposition j it sets the thing up


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on